Over half a century ago, folks were pointing out that merely building more water projects was NOT the answer, and that conservation, and change of “business models” on land use, or city planning, was mandatory, and a “pay me now, or pay me more later” was the accurate picture. It’s now “Pay me later”, and at much higher price than a longer range investment would have required.
OldCoal: No, but most of the coast is a web of active faults. They also have high insolation (sunlight intensity), lots of wind in both mountains and offshore, and a modest supply of geothermal heat; none of which have a deadly residue to which no one has a long-term solution beyond putting into munitions and spreading it unevenly across the Middle East.
This is just the beginning. Out of human arrogance and ignorance, we thought it was a good idea to move millions upon millions of people into an area that is dry and subject to frequent droughts. If you think this is bad, just wait for AZ and NM to dry up. All those abandon cliff dwellings, guess what happened there, long before so called Anthropogenic climate change.
We didn’t actually “move” millions of people. They went because they wanted to go, then demanded services, and then some made profits supplying those services. Now the air is dark with chickens coming home to roost.
superposition about 9 years ago
And our wonderful political ideologies offer long term solutions to this problem?
PICTO about 9 years ago
Wait till you start paying $5.00 a flush…
Simon_Jester about 9 years ago
Who puts plain WATER in their radiator anyway?
louieglutz about 9 years ago
and back to the brick in the toilet…
Spyderred about 9 years ago
I don’t understand it. If the guy works for Nestle, is a farmer, even raising almond trees, or a fracker he has no water restrictions at all.
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
Over half a century ago, folks were pointing out that merely building more water projects was NOT the answer, and that conservation, and change of “business models” on land use, or city planning, was mandatory, and a “pay me now, or pay me more later” was the accurate picture. It’s now “Pay me later”, and at much higher price than a longer range investment would have required.
kaffekup about 9 years ago
Good idea! Just what we need, more nuclear plants on fault lines. What could possibly go wrong???
hippogriff about 9 years ago
OldCoal: No, but most of the coast is a web of active faults. They also have high insolation (sunlight intensity), lots of wind in both mountains and offshore, and a modest supply of geothermal heat; none of which have a deadly residue to which no one has a long-term solution beyond putting into munitions and spreading it unevenly across the Middle East.
Robert Lowe about 9 years ago
And did Toles publish a similar story about the Clinton PAC? Nah he’s not intellectually honest.
Fred Renigar about 9 years ago
This is just the beginning. Out of human arrogance and ignorance, we thought it was a good idea to move millions upon millions of people into an area that is dry and subject to frequent droughts. If you think this is bad, just wait for AZ and NM to dry up. All those abandon cliff dwellings, guess what happened there, long before so called Anthropogenic climate change.
kaffekup about 9 years ago
We didn’t actually “move” millions of people. They went because they wanted to go, then demanded services, and then some made profits supplying those services. Now the air is dark with chickens coming home to roost.